Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/02/edward-snowden-gets-russian-passport-after-swearing-oath-of-allegiance?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

His actions certainly hurt American intelligence.

But don't tell me you support Prism, or any kind of mass surveillance on citizens without their knowledge or consent?


I'm being completely serious here, you talk as if you believe a police state is acceptable, provided such a state was effective against neo-nazi's or white supremacists or other dissidents.

I don't follow. Isn't it explanatory that he sought Russian citizenship to avoid extradition?

While possible, not sure, as noted, could just be to avoid jail

Now Julian Assange, that guy's in (or was) Putin's pocket.

Originally posted by Smurph
I don't follow. Isn't it explanatory that he sought Russian citizenship to avoid extradition? Sure, but morally who's worse, the US or Russia? Why choose Russia over the US to expose? Then take their passport?Originally posted by Robtard
While possible, not sure, as noted, could just be to avoid jail

Now Julian Assange, that guy's in (or was) Putin's pocket. That he was and he fooled me for a bit. But, it was the long game to undermine the youth via the internet, make them distrust. Look how Glenn Gruenwald turned out... Master of right wing media, his mask slipped bigtime, he also fooled me and was knee deep in it all as Snowden's chronicler. I do believe Manning was genuine but vulnerable.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Sure but morally who's worse? Why choose Russia over the US to expose? Then take their passport? Well, his version of the story is that he was a whistleblower in the American govt who ultimately had to seek asylum and citizenship elsewhere to stay out of jail. If you believe him, then it wasn't really about choosing Russian over the US so much as finding allies in the enemy of my enemy.

It seems ironic and counterintuitive in hindsight to become a Russian citizen as a result of resisting government abuse of power. On the other hand, it makes sense to me that a person who places such a high premium on individual liberties would do anything that he could to avoid jail.

All to say, I'm not sure that him making an oath to Russia really clarifies whether he was always a Russian asset or if he has just become one now as a matter of circumstance.

Originally posted by Smurph
Well, his version of the story is that he was a whistleblower in the American govt who ultimately had to seek asylum and citizenship elsewhere to stay out of jail. If you believe him, then it wasn't really about choosing Russian over the US so much as finding allies in the enemy of my enemy.

It seems ironic and counterintuitive in hindsight to become a Russian citizen as a result of resisting government abuse of power. On the other hand, it makes sense to me that a person who places such a high premium on individual liberties would do anything that he could to avoid jail.

All to say, I'm not sure that him making an oath to Russia really clarifies whether he was always a Russian asset or if he has just become one now as a matter of circumstance. I can't disagree with any of that. And I'm going to channel Astner here with Objective observations (which are just my opinion really).

1) Glenn Gruenwald is now actively shilling for the far right.
2) The more you look at what Assange, Snowden and Gruenwald did, the more it plays into the hands of the far right... open doors for Trumps rise to power and Russia, who I still believe Trump was also in bed with and not just his Eastern European wife and daughter. They also caused a lot of distrust of the media and states like the US and UK leading to opportunities for popularism in the wider scheme. We all know about the likes of Philby and McClain. This was the successful turned agent.

We been knew. Assange, Greenwald, and Snowden are all Russian assets, and all shills for the far-right.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
We been knew. Assange, Greenwald, and Snowden are all Russian assets, and all shills for the far-right. Yup, it really seems so in hindsight.

Originally posted by Smurph
Well, his version of the story is that he was a whistleblower in the American govt who ultimately had to seek asylum and citizenship elsewhere to stay out of jail. If you believe him, then it wasn't really about choosing Russian over the US so much as finding allies in the enemy of my enemy.

It seems ironic and counterintuitive in hindsight to become a Russian citizen as a result of resisting government abuse of power. On the other hand, it makes sense to me that a person who places such a high premium on individual liberties would do anything that he could to avoid jail.

All to say, I'm not sure that him making an oath to Russia really clarifies whether he was always a Russian asset or if he has just become one now as a matter of circumstance.


And we do have actual examples of what happens to whistleblowers in our regime.

Mordechai Vanunu is one example, kidnapped right out of the UK. His crime; exposing an illegal nuclear program.


The US of course has many examples of our own.


Personally, I believe they murdered Michael Hastings. His car malfunctions just before a major expose, too convenient.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Yup, it really seems so in hindsight.

It seemed so in real-time.

Assange is just the Internet version of Rupert Murdock. He does not have principled motivations, he only cares about clicks, irrespective of who is harmed.

Greenwald is a conservative Libertarian, and the only reason he is not a Republican is because he is gay. He only attacks the center and the left, and plays defense for the right.

Snowden did not reveal anything we did not know. Everything he revealed we were warned about before passing the Patriot Act. There is also a system in place for government whistleblowers, which neither he or Chelsea Manning, followed. If he did the right thing, then he would have stayed and gone to trial, confident that he would have been acquitted as a whistleblower. Instead, he was so "principled" about government surveillance that he fled to an enemy state with a worse record than the U.S.

People would have to be blind not to see through all of their bullshit.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It seemed so in real-time.

Assange is just the Internet version of Rupert Murdock. He does not have principled motivations, he only cares about clicks, irrespective of who is harmed.

Greenwald is a conservative Libertarian, and the only reason he is not a Republican is because he is gay. He only attacks the center and the left, and plays defense for the right.

Snowden did not reveal anything we did not know. Everything he revealed we were warned about before passing the Patriot Act. There is also a system in place for government whistleblowers, which neither he or Chelsea Manning, followed. If he did the right thing, then he would have stayed and gone to trial, confident that he would have been acquitted as a whistleblower. Instead, he was so "principled" about government surveillance that he fled to an enemy state with a worse record than the U.S.

People would have to be blind not to see through all of their bullshit. Yeah, I see that now.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It seemed so in real-time.

Assange is just the Internet version of Rupert Murdock. He does not have principled motivations, he only cares about clicks, irrespective of who is harmed.

Greenwald is a conservative Libertarian, and the only reason he is not a Republican is because he is gay. He only attacks the center and the left, and plays defense for the right.

Snowden did not reveal anything we did not know. Everything he revealed we were warned about before passing the Patriot Act. There is also a system in place for government whistleblowers, which neither he or Chelsea Manning, followed. If he did the right thing, then he would have stayed and gone to trial, confident that he would have been acquitted as a whistleblower. Instead, he was so "principled" about government surveillance that he fled to an enemy state with a worse record than the U.S.

People would have to be blind not to see through all of their bullshit.

A writer in a reprinted article still up on the aclu website claims the intelligence communities were exempt from whistleblower protection laws;

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/edward-snowden-whistleblower

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It seemed so in real-time.

Assange is just the Internet version of Rupert Murdock. He does not have principled motivations, he only cares about clicks, irrespective of who is harmed.

Greenwald is a conservative Libertarian, and the only reason he is not a Republican is because he is gay. He only attacks the center and the left, and plays defense for the right.

Snowden did not reveal anything we did not know. Everything he revealed we were warned about before passing the Patriot Act. There is also a system in place for government whistleblowers, which neither he or Chelsea Manning, followed. If he did the right thing, then he would have stayed and gone to trial, confident that he would have been acquitted as a whistleblower. Instead, he was so "principled" about government surveillance that he fled to an enemy state with a worse record than the U.S.

People would have to be blind not to see through all of their bullshit. https://intellectualtakeout.org/2018/02/professor-publishes-then-deletes-tweet-accusing-pulitzer-prize-winning-journalist-of-being-a-russian-asset/

Less than five years after winning a Pulitzer Prize for exposing surveillance abuses in U.S. intelligence agencies, Glenn Greenwald increasingly finds himself accused of being a stooge of Vladimir Putin.

The latest accusation comes from Claus Wilke, a Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas, who tweeted on Sunday that Greenwald was a “Russian asset.”

“Dmitri: FYI, Greenwald is a Russian asset. If you look at the people and positions he has supported in recent years, that’s pretty obvious,” Wilke tweeted to a fellow biologist who teaches at Stanford University.

The evidence for Tulsi Gabbard being a Russian asset keeps increasing


https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2022/03/14/tulsi-gabbards-biggest-political-donor-in-2021-is-a-putin-apologist/

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
https://intellectualtakeout.org/2018/02/professor-publishes-then-deletes-tweet-accusing-pulitzer-prize-winning-journalist-of-being-a-russian-asset/

Less than five years after winning a Pulitzer Prize for exposing surveillance abuses in U.S. intelligence agencies, Glenn Greenwald increasingly finds himself accused of being a stooge of Vladimir Putin.

The latest accusation comes from Claus Wilke, a Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas, who tweeted on Sunday that Greenwald was a “Russian asset.”

“Dmitri: FYI, Greenwald is a Russian asset. If you look at the people and positions he has supported in recent years, that’s pretty obvious,” Wilke tweeted to a fellow biologist who teaches at Stanford University.

Glen Greenwald and his husband have been accused of sex trafficking young men in Brazil, which would explain why he is such an adamant defender of Matt Gaetz for doing the same.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Glen Greenwald and his husband have been accused of sex trafficking young men in Brazil, which would explain why he is such an adamant defender of Matt Gaetz for doing the same. he had me fooled, he really does seem a piece of shit.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Glen Greenwald and his husband have been accused of sex trafficking young men in Brazil, which would explain why he is such an adamant defender of Matt Gaetz for doing the same. source?

This really doesnt prove anything except that hes avoiding Julian Assanges fate.

But it goes back to the free speech topic. Clearly free speech isnt a thing. Not even for journalists.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Glen Greenwald and his husband have been accused of sex trafficking young men in Brazil, which would explain why he is such an adamant defender of Matt Gaetz for doing the same.

Is this more of that "pedophile cabal" Rightist keep blaming on the Left?

Is there an actual source though?

Seems like the other accusations that Greenwald faced from Brazil were about Bolsonaro lashing out, and those were dropped. But I didn't think that those accusations included human trafficking charges.

I'll be the bad guy so Smurph doesn't have to point it out (If he intends to)

Is there a source for any of that?

Not calling you a liar, it's just easier if we had links to know where you're getting it from, instead of looking up and down Google using various search terms.

And I mean, Smurph did nicely ask. Just saying.

Yeah im also pretty suspicious when sexual harassment accusations get attached to people spilling government war crimes.

Originally posted by Smurph
so... you don't have a source, then?

It's public record that he was corporate counsel for a porn business and ended up owning part of it and getting into litigation with his co-owner. It's also public that he had various debts and collections issues in his career, and that he met his husband when the latter was 19 in Brazil, and that Greenwald is 18 years older than him.

But all this other stuff that you're throwing out there... is that just allegations made by Peter Haas, and internet rumours, and your very loose conjecture?

It is public record. You managed to find it. So what are you complaining about?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yeah im also pretty suspicious when sexual harassment accusations get attached to people spilling government war crimes.

I am pretty suspicious of middle-aged men who go to foreign countries to **** teenagers.

That they are "partners" now does not make it any better than teenage girls in religious communities marrying men twice their age.

Do not defend sick shit just because it is one of your "government transparency" heroes.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is public record. You managed to find it. So what are you complaining about? No complaint, just a simple question.

You said they've been accused of sex trafficking young men and boys. Accused by... who? Accused by Adam_PoE?

Originally posted by Smurph
No complaint, just a simple question.

You said they've been accused of sex trafficking young men and boys. Accused by... who? Accused by Adam_PoE?

The people involved with the pornography he and his partner produce together.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The people involved with the pornography he and his partner produce together. So you've got a source then? Because the only source I see alleging human trafficking is you...

Even the NY Daily News article reporting on the Peter Haas lawsuit details some pretty embarrassing stuff about debts and emails but nothing like what you're citing.

Originally posted by Smurph
So you've got a source then? Because the only source I see alleging human trafficking is you...

Even the NY Daily News article reporting on the Peter Haas lawsuit details some pretty embarrassing stuff about debts and emails but nothing like what you're citing.

Sexually exploiting homeless teenagers for money is sex trafficking, whether it is on film or not. That he and his partner produce pornography in Brazil is a matter of public record, and one that neither of them deny. I do not know what part of this is so hard for you to grasp.

^ lol, I am not the one having trouble grasping a basic concept:

Originally posted by Smurph
source?

Originally posted by Smurph
Is there an actual source though?


Originally posted by Smurph
so... you don't have a source, then?

Originally posted by Smurph
So you've got a source then? Because the only source I see alleging human trafficking is you...

A wall of text, but... still no source. Weird.


Ah, no, we must misunderstand each other. My question is simple and specific and I've asked it five times now. Let me try again:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Glen Greenwald and his husband have been accused of sex trafficking young men in Brazil ...source?

and, for whatever it seems to be worth, the ad hominem about my motive is also off base. I don't hold up Glenn Greenwald as a hero. The guy seems like a probable jerk and a possible scumbag, although merely a possible one.

but, you mentioned allegations that went way further than anything I'd seen or anything I saw on a simple search. So I asked for a source in good faith. Then you started this strange page of apparent bullshitting instead of just... citing a source...

so yeah, Greenwald sucks to unknown degrees, but do you regularly just make shit up? or is this all just conspiracy theory fodder that you don't want to admit to peddling?

Snowden should be completely exonerated and praised for exposing a government program ruled illegal and possibly unconstitutional.

In fact, I think this applies to all whistleblowers, provided their "crimes" were only against the state. I just plain don't care that some state agency's rules were violated, if it reveals they violated the rights of the public. Ours comes first, every ****ing time.

He fled to Russia because he would be legally be treated as a spy, which prevents you from actually defending yourself in court in the same way regular citizens can.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Snowden should be completely exonerated and praised for exposing a government program ruled illegal and possibly unconstitutional.

In fact, I think this apply to all whistleblowers, provided their "crimes" were only against the state. I just plain don't care that some state agency's rules were violated, if it reveals they violated the rights of the public. Ours comes first, every ****ing time.

He fled to Russia because he would be legally be treated as a spy, which prevents you from actually defending yourself in court in the same way regular citizens can. (autNow that's a different argument all together. What I would say ST, is who gained from Snowden's actions? Do you think you are being observed less, do you think any notice of you was really being taken at all?

We all gain from Snowden's actions. The government should be beholden to the law, just as we, the public, are.

There shouldn't be a double-standard just because an individual violation didn't affect you specifically.

Originally posted by StyleTime
We all gain from Snowden's actions. The government should be beholden to the law, just as we, the public, are.

There shouldn't be a double-standard just because an individual violation didn't affect you specifically. not at all, in theory I agree with a lot of that. Do you think the security agencies surveillance you less now? In terms of who gains most by someone's ineffectual actions, probably in this case whoever wants a weak America... maybe the same people who marched into Ukraine. It becomes more difficult to mobilise if your own Government is distrusted. Snowden can only do what he did in relatively democratic countries. Erdoğan or Putin would have had him killed by now.

A general post to some things said in the thread:

There seems to be multiple ideas being discussed here.

The acts of whistleblowing should be celebrated and venerated. Hopefully, future whistleblowers won't be too afraid for their lives to come forward with similar information.

If an individual whistleblower commits some other heinous act, like human trafficking, then they should be prosecuted; however, they should be prosecuted for that crime separately.

Originally posted by StyleTime
A general post to some things said in the thread:

There seems to be multiple ideas being discussed here.

The acts of whistleblowing should be celebrated and venerated. Hopefully, future whistleblowers won't be too afraid for their lives to come forward with similar information.

If an individual whistleblower commits some other heinous act, like human trafficking, then they should be prosecuted; however, they should be prosecuted for that crime separately. Do you see Putin letting his doppleganger sNovichokdon live in a similar situation? Are whistleblowers only for democracies?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
not at all, in theory I agree with a lot of that. Do you think the security agencies surveillance you less now? I

Erdoğan or Putin would have had him killed by now.
Of course, we won't stop all of it. We should still stop and prosecute them when we do discover it happening though.

He could have been killed here, especially if it hadn't garnered so much media attention. Even if he wasn't, sitting in political prison after undergoing an unjust "trial" as a spy isn't some great outcome. I don't really blame him for leaving.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
It becomes more difficult to mobilise if your own Government is distrusted. Snowden can only do what he did in relatively democratic countries. In terms of who gains most by someone's ineffectual actions, probably in this case whoever wants a weak America... maybe the same people who marched into Ukraine.
I don't know about the UK, but this "national security" lie has been a fear mongering tool by US conservatives for a while now. It's used to justify any and all government overreach, by simply throwing out the "national security" line whether or not it actually applies. Democrats are fairly right leaning on foreign policy, so they use it too.

If they wanted to protect us, and make a strong America, they'd stop creating the circumstances abroad that literally breed the "terrorists" we're fighting against. They'd stop engaging in wars-for-profit at the behest of defense companies who bankroll congresspeople. They'd stop bombing brown people so that contractors can make money in post-war reconstruction of places we decimate.

If there was a genuine immediate threat to us, most people would be co-operative for security's sake. We mobilized quite fine when we were lied to about Iraq.

I get it. I'm far more left than most Americans, so many won't agree with me. I just don't get how they see these whistleblowers as the threat to national security and not the profiteers starting the damn wars.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Of course, we won't stop all of it. We should still stop and prosecute them when we do discover it happening though.

He could have been killed here, especially if it hadn't garnered so much media attention. Even if he wasn't, sitting in political prison after undergoing an unjust "trial" as a spy isn't some great outcome. I don't really blame him for leaving.


I don't know about the UK, but this "national security" lie has been a fear mongering tool by US conservatives for a while now. It's used to justify any and all government overreach, by simply throwing out the "national security" line whether or not it actually applies. Democrats are fairly right leaning on foreign policy, so they use it too.

If they wanted to protect us, and make a strong America, they'd stop creating the circumstances abroad that literally breed the "terrorists" we're fighting against. They'd stop engaging in wars-for-profit at the behest of defense companies who bankroll congresspeople. They'd stop bombing brown people so that contractors can make money in post-war reconstruction of places we decimate.

If there was a genuine immediate threat to us, most people would be co-operative for security's sake. We mobilized quite fine when we were lied to about Iraq.

I get it. I'm far more left than most Americans, so many won't agree with me. I just don't get how they see these whistleblowers as the threat to national security and not the profiteers starting the damn wars. There is a genuine threat to you ST, and almost 30% of your voting population believe that you are Governed by the deep state, who manipulated an election and these people offer tacit support for the Jan 6 insurrection attempt; because they have been misdirected. You now have a narrative which is creating terrorists at home. The narrative is the general truth isn't truth and you should hate the truth.

You are far to intelligent to be taken in. But, the vast majority of people in my own country weren't, and this constant erosion of the old standards led to Brexit.

Truth, Snowden's observations were something the world should know. Truth did it help undermine US security and US peoples faith more importantly in its security agencies and help lead eventually to Trumps attacks on the CIA and FBI? Almost certainly.

Which was the man in Russia's primary motivation?

Originally posted by StyleTime


If they wanted to protect us, and make a strong America, they'd stop creating the circumstances abroad that literally breed the "terrorists" we're fighting against. They'd stop engaging in wars-for-profit at the behest of defense companies who bankroll congresspeople. They'd stop bombing brown people so that contractors can make money in post-war reconstruction of places we decimate.




Bingo.

We claim to be slightly more aware/awake in the UK, yet so far weve followed the US on foreign policy for the most part.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Bingo.

We claim to be slightly more aware/awake in the UK, yet so far weve followed the US on foreign policy for the most part. Whatever negatives anyone levels at the UK and US and plenty are warranted. You are free to say that in either. In many other countries you are not and dare not.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
There is a genuine threat to you ST, and almost 30% of your voting population believe that you are Governed by the deep state, who manipulated an election and these people offer tacit support for the Jan 6 insurrection attempt; because they have been misdirected. You now have a narrative which is creating terrorists at home. The narrative is the general truth isn't truth and you should hate the truth.

You are far to intelligent to be taken in. But, the vast majority of people in my own country weren't, and this constant erosion of the old standards led to Brexit.

Truth, Snowden's observations were something the world should know. Truth did it help undermine US security and US peoples faith more importantly in its security agencies and help lead eventually to Trumps attacks on the CIA and FBI? Almost certainly.

Which was the man in Russia's primary motivation?
I agree there are morons out there, but I disagree exposing government transgressions led to this. In fact, conservative leaders were the ones labeling Snowden a traitor back then. This ties back into their ideas about "National Security" and "Patriotism", which they pretend he violated.

The government makes martyrs out of these people, and continue to do so, by not exonerating them. That contributes to distrust -- letting the actual government agencies off the hook and leaving the whistleblowers in exile.

With Trump, I feel like he would have had that success regardless. "REEEE! The liberal media!" mentality was around long before any of this. Trump just happened to be a charismatic enough demagogue to capitalize on it. They take a small nugget of truth and run to wild extremes with it. There is a deep state, but it's not like what they think.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Of course, we won't stop all of it. We should still stop and prosecute them when we do discover it happening though.

He could have been killed here, especially if it hadn't garnered so much media attention. Even if he wasn't, sitting in political prison after undergoing an unjust "trial" as a spy isn't some great outcome. I don't really blame him for leaving.


I don't know about the UK, but this "national security" lie has been a fear mongering tool by US conservatives for a while now. It's used to justify any and all government overreach, by simply throwing out the "national security" line whether or not it actually applies. Democrats are fairly right leaning on foreign policy, so they use it too.

If they wanted to protect us, and make a strong America, they'd stop creating the circumstances abroad that literally breed the "terrorists" we're fighting against. They'd stop engaging in wars-for-profit at the behest of defense companies who bankroll congresspeople. They'd stop bombing brown people so that contractors can make money in post-war reconstruction of places we decimate.

If there was a genuine immediate threat to us, most people would be co-operative for security's sake. We mobilized quite fine when we were lied to about Iraq.

I get it. I'm far more left than most Americans, so many won't agree with me. I just don't get how they see these whistleblowers as the threat to national security and not the profiteers starting the damn wars.



I mean, it can be both things at the same time, the Cons can dog whistle about the deep state, and the feds can be abusive.

The NYPD corruption is fact, you think that sort of corruption is limited to them? Because I think it's systemic to all large and powerful organizations.


You know about Michael Hastings death, right? He was setting up an expose on the feds, claimed they joked about killing him, and 'lo and behold his car malfunctions and he crashes to his death before his story could break.

Edward Snowden was an agent of white supremacy. His wiki leaks was all about keeping the white man on top.

What a gutless honky.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Whatever negatives anyone levels at the UK and US and plenty are warranted. You are free to say that in either. In many other countries you are not and dare not.



Well they dont treat their own as badly as they do others. You can take that as a positive.

But honestly, could just be they figured long ago, that protesting and debating really isnt a threat to them. Especially when mainstream media pretty much controls how we think, added to an electorate system that isnt very representative and essentially gives us a limited choice (much more so in the U.S).

I mean Tony Blair used to say that a lot with the protests towards the Iraq War, that at least we can protest unlike in Iraq. But what good did that do? Didnt stop us taking part in the war.

However when they do see someone as a threat (aka Assange) we quickly realise how free we really are.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Well they dont treat their own as badly as they do others. You can take that as a positive.

But honestly, could just be they figured long ago, that protesting and debating really isnt a threat to them. Especially when mainstream media pretty much controls how we think, added to an electorate system that isnt very representative and essentially gives us a limited choice (much more so in the U.S).

I mean Tony Blair used to say that a lot with the protests towards the Iraq War, that at least we can protest unlike in Iraq. But what good did that do? Didnt stop us taking part in the war.

However when they do see someone as a threat (aka Assange) we quickly realise how free we really are.

https://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-stone-10-20-1977

https://fcpp.org/2021/06/28/the-cias-media-assets/


Well documented not conspiracy.


The news is hopelessly compromised and has been for some time.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Well they dont treat their own as badly as they do others. You can take that as a positive.

But honestly, could just be they figured long ago, that protesting and debating really isnt a threat to them. Especially when mainstream media pretty much controls how we think, added to an electorate system that isnt very representative and essentially gives us a limited choice (much more so in the U.S).

I mean Tony Blair used to say that a lot with the protests towards the Iraq War, that at least we can protest unlike in Iraq. But what good did that do? Didnt stop us taking part in the war.

However when they do see someone as a threat (aka Assange) we quickly realise how free we really are. trust me, we are very free.